Please help save Geronimo from voting for Kerry

[Imran Siddiqui]

Filibustering allows a large minority of Senators to prevent the vote, the blue-slip allows one Senator to prevent the vote. The latter is definitely worse.

When you are the Committee Chair, you have a mandate of the majority in what comes up for vote. That's a major part of the Committee Chair, which is a necessary part of a committee. The filibuster isn't necessary to anything.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
dont vote kerry, vote badnarik.

www.lp.org , click on badnarik, top left.

I meant to respond to this and got side tracked. Badnarik (and LP candidates in general) will easily most closely match more of my views on more issues than any of the other candidates but Minnesotans vote for LP in such low numbers that for presidential races I tend to select my candidate based on which of the two major party candidates I want to have the stronger mandate. In every presidential election since I was old enough to make my own informed political opinions this has been the republican candidate. This time the last thing I want my vote doing is contributing to a Bush mandate and I fear any LP vote will simply be lumped into a bush mandate in the same manner that a vote for Nader would have been lumped into a gore mandate had Gore won. I only vote like this in fvcked up election systems like the electoral college.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ramo
If you oppose indefinite detention, why do you support the Patriot Act? An provision of it allows the indefinite detention of aliens on the attorney general's whim.

Because not only do I believe that holding aliens indefinately is constitutional but I also cannot conceive how it would possibly reduce our ability to oppose an out of control government through legal means. Rounding up every last alien in the country would not silence the dissent of the our citizens.

[notyoueither]

Damn. I was hoping the answer would be that an act of Congress should require clearing the hurdles of all three branches.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Damn. I was hoping the answer would be that an act of Congress should require clearing the hurdles of all three branches.

It seems to me that the problem is that only the executive branch of government has any real power. The moment the executive chooses to ignore legislation or the consititution there is no way to reign it in unless the legislature is sufficiently opposed or non partisan to complete impeachment proceedings to remove the president from office. I was actually glad when Clinton was impeached not because I cared much that Clinton purjored to cover his betrayel of his family and not even because I felt that his policies were often damaging to the country but because I felt that it was important to keep the impeachment process alive and well as a kind of sword of damocles to dangle over the necks of otherwise totally unaccountable presidents.

[MRT144]

geronimo...youve hit it. once the legislature is in the pocket of the executive there is nothing that can be done.

[Ramo]

When you are the Committee Chair, you have a mandate of the majority in what comes up for vote. That's a major part of the Committee Chair, which is a necessary part of a committee. The filibuster isn't necessary to anything.

No, they're both aspects of parliamentary rule that allows a minority to prevent a bill from coming to vote. When Clinton was in power, Hatch allowed any single Senator of the same home state as the nominee to block him/her. I don't see why that's sacred (especially given that Hatch reversed this rule now that Shrub's in power), and filibustering wrong. That's nonsense.

Because not only do I believe that holding aliens indefinately is constitutional

Why? And even if it were constitutional, don't you think that it's wrong? If you were vacationing in another country, would it be ok if their government held you in prison indefinitely without due process?

but I also cannot conceive how it would possibly reduce our ability to oppose an out of control government through legal means. Rounding up every last alien in the country would not silence the dissent of the our citizens.

Rounding up some citizens wouldn't silence the dissent of the rest. Would it be ok to have some sort of quota, like only a few million citizens could be rounded up without due process at a given time?

[Imran Siddiqui]

When Clinton was in power, Hatch allowed any Senator of the same home state as the nominee to block him/her. I don't see why that's sacred (especially given that Hatch reversed this rule now that Shrub's in power), and filibustering wrong.

Because Committee Chairs, which are necessary to control the flow of legislation in committee, are allowed to set the agenda in any way they wish.

Filibuster is an action brought by a minority to block a vote. A 'blue-slip' is something condoned by the majority chair and thus under his majority mandate.

It isn't a minority with prevents a bill from coming to a vote with a 'blue-slip', its the majority.

[MRT144]

imran, sometimes the minority is right in upholding the process if the minority is 48%

[Ramo]

The filibuster is part of Senate rules. It's the mandate of the superminority (making the word up )for it to be there. Senate rules are meant to require a supermajority to be overturned. If otherwise, there'd be pandemonium. Do you really want Senate rules to be overturned by a majority?

[Imran Siddiqui]

You do know that there is no such thing as a filibuster in the House, don't you? And there doesn't seem to be any pandemonium there.

And like I said:
It is a deplorable practice which never should have been part of Senate rules.

I don't see where you get this silly strawman about a simple majority overturning Senate rules.

And besides, a majority ALWAYS has a greater mandate than a minority, and therefore a 'blue-slip' is more tasteful than a filibuster.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ramo

Because not only do I believe that holding aliens indefinately is constitutional

Why? And even if it were constitutional, don't you think that it's wrong? If you were vacationing in another country, would it be ok if their government held you in prison indefinitely without due process?

You hit the nail on the head. It is precisely because so many foreign governments allow for holding of americans (and indeed anybody) indefinately without due process that I balk at extending our constitution to cover everybody in the world. However, I think it would be appropriate to enact legislation such that we extend equivalent protection to countries recognized to respect these principles. Even in the absence of such legislation I would want the executive to restrain itself when dealing with the citizens of such countries. So while I don't regard indefinate detention of brits or mexicans for example as unconstitutional I still find such detentions inexcusable and hold them against Bush as an example of poor foreign policy.

Originally posted by Ramo

but I also cannot conceive how it would possibly reduce our ability to oppose an out of control government through legal means. Rounding up every last alien in the country would not silence the dissent of the our citizens.

Rounding up some citizens wouldn't silence the dissent of the rest. Would it be ok to have some sort of quota, like only a few million citizens could be rounded up without due process at a given time?

The reason I value our constitution even above our democracy is because it offers protection to the minority against the tyranny of the majority. Tyranny of a mob is every bit as real as tyranny of an individual or an oligarchy. If I were to accept a quota on citizen detentions that lack due process it would mean accepting total nullification of this protection of minorities. Would a quota have prevented Lincolns detentions or FDR's detentions? Almost certainly not the former and probably not the latter. No. I regard it as essential that all citizens be free from any possibility of an imprisonment in which they have no legal recourse to challenge their confinement.

[Ramo]

You do know that there is no such thing as a filibuster in the House, don't you? And there doesn't seem to be any pandemonium there.

I didn't say the lack of filibusters caused pandemonium.

And besides, a majority ALWAYS has a greater mandate than a minority, and therefore a 'blue-slip' is more tasteful than a filibuster.

41 Senators always have a greater mandate than one Senator.

I don't see what you don't understand. One Senator is using a stupid rule - like the filibuster, but worse - that the Judiciary Chair created. Obviously, that isn't at all tasteful.

_____

You hit the nail on the head. It is precisely because so many foreign governments allow for holding of americans (and indeed anybody) indefinately without due process that I balk at extending our constitution to cover everybody in the world. However, I think it would be appropriate to enact legislation such that we extend equivalent protection to countries recognized to respect these principles.

Don't you think that your ideas are the matter are juvenile? They do bad things to our citizens, so it's ok to do bad stuff to their citizens? How can you possibly consider that to be ethical?

Further, how can you expect them to treat our citizens justly if you accept that premise. By that reasoning, it's ok for the Brits to go about rounding up Americans without due process since we don't respect their liberties.

The reason I value our constitution even above our democracy is because it offers protection to the minority against the tyranny of the majority. Tyranny of a mob is every bit as real as tyranny of an individual or an oligarchy. If I were to accept a quota on citizen detentions that lack due process it would mean accepting total nullification of this protection of minorities.

So why is ok to deny noncitizens protection from the "tyranny of the majority," but wrong to deny citizens protection from the "tyranny of the majority?"

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ramo

The reason I value our constitution even above our democracy is because it offers protection to the minority against the tyranny of the majority. Tyranny of a mob is every bit as real as tyranny of an individual or an oligarchy. If I were to accept a quota on citizen detentions that lack due process it would mean accepting total nullification of this protection of minorities.

So why is ok to deny noncitizens protection from the "tyranny of the majority," but wrong to deny citizens protection from the "tyranny of the majority?"

For pretty much the same reason that people can oppose the invasion of Iraq even though deposing the extremely unpopular dictatorship and planning to set up a democratic government in it's place would be consistent with the principles enshrined within our constitution. It would be great for the whole world to be a democracy enjoying the protection of our constitution but it is not practical and enormous numbers of people would even scream it would be unethical to even try to make it that way.

[Ramo]

That doesn't make any sense, whatsoever. You might want to rethink this.